Best Explanation of Quantum Field Theory That You Will Ever Hear

via chycho

higgs_field_I15-76-Higgs4

Below you will find an excellent lecture by Dr. Sean Carroll delivered on 12 June 2013 at the 46th Annual Fermilab Users Meeting, focusing on the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson confirming the existence of the Higgs field – giving us a glimpse into the world of “Particles, Fields and The Future of Physics”.

For me, the highlight of the lecture occurred during the question and answer period, at approximately 1:14:32, when one of the members of the audience asked the following question:

Question: “So, could you explain a bit more on measurement? You said that you have wave and it interacts with an entangled amount of waves and then pops out a particle, right?

I found the following response by Dr. Carroll to be the best description of quantum field theory that I have ever come across:

Sean Carroll: “Yes. I did say that, do you want me to say more about that?

“One reason why it’s confusing is because there is sort of two levels of waviness. Alright?

“So, if the world were really made out of particles, but quantum mechanics were true, there would still be a certain waviness about the world because quantum mechanics says that even if there are particles, the way you describe those particles is through a wave function; through a field that fills space and tells you what the probability is of observing that particle. So the world is made of particles, but the observations of the particles are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, which involves some wave.

“But the quantum field theory philosophy says that there is not even a particle. What you start with is a field – something that looks waving, something that fills all of space, like the electromagnetic field or the gravitational field – then you apply the rules of quantum mechanics to that, and miraculously what comes out when we look at it are particles.

“So quantum mechanics says that what you see when you observe the universe comes to us – in very frequent circumstances – in discrete packets, discrete lumps. Even if the underlying reality is smooth, we see it in individual discrete bits, and it’s the particles that make up you and me that are the discrete bits we see when we look at fields.

“Fields vibrating and interacting with each other is just the most poetic language that I can think of. The math is perfectly straight forward. You’re young enough to study the math. Go for it.”

Q&A Segment: Particles, Fields and The Future of Physics – A Lecture by Sean Carroll (starts at approximately 1:14:32)

Full Lecture: Particles, Fields and The Future of Physics – A Lecture by Sean Carroll (starts at 2:15, after the introduction)

, , , , , , , , ,

  • BuzzCoastin

    the Buddha came to the same realization about 3000 years ago
    he even postulated the vibratory rate & got damned close
    but his conclusion was
    anything snaping in & out of existence that fast
    can’t be real the way wee think reality is

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      The Buddha known as a new collective awareness was snapped out of existence and replace with a separate man who sat under the tree of life but never dared too eat its fruit.

      • BuzzCoastin

        Proly
        butt the fabel plays better & remembered mo betta
        which is why they structured Sid & Laotzu that way
        (they = wee)

  • AManCalledDa-da

    Well, it’s like this:

    1. The particles are actually waving because they’re existing in multiple universes/dimensions all at once, some moving in and out depending on possibilities and outcome.

    2. The particles we see are vibrating at lower frequencies, because WE vibrate at a lower frequency.

    3. The whole thing is basically a mass-less projection; the waviness is a function of that illusion.

    4. Meanwhile, you are a non-local being having a local experience, watching 3-D TV as it were.

    Hope that helps.

    -Da-da

    • Rhoid Rager

      So where the hell are WE?

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      Thanks for the hard clues between the difference of mathematical quantum physics and new-age “quantum phenomena”

    • Sergio Poalsky

      1. No evidence
      2. No evidence, Doesn’t even make sense (‘We’ vibrate at lower frequencies?)
      3. A hologram? possibly, need more evidence
      4. No evidence

  • terrasodium

    Now the really important question is, how do we convert this science into a technology that we can incorporate into an amusement theme park?

    • VaudeVillain

      That’s pretty important, but hardly the most important. There are actually two of equally important questions at the top of the pile:

      1) So how do we weaponize this and start using it to kill droves of brown people?

      2) Can this be used to put more bacon onto a sandwich while still allowing total prep time to remain appropriate for a drive-thru window?

      • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

        I don’t expect to read a finer comment today. Good day good sir!

      • terrasodium

        I envisioned Haliburton running the food court and Blackwater/Xe/The Academy operating the ticket window .exits and entrances.

  • Simon Valentine

    wedon’tknowbuthere’sapileofstuffandsomecigsnowgettoworksoldier
    except it’s “the ‘scientist’s’ version” instead of the “military”, “circus”, “social”, or other identical and equivalent versions of idiocy

    “make it go”

    • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

      ⁒ ⌛ ⁒ ⌛⁒ ⌛



      ␀␀
      ␀␀␀
      ␀␀␀␀
      ␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀␀

      • Simon Valentine

        looks an an induction QED

        • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

          …I’ll accept that answer…

21
More in fields, Higgs, Higgs boson, lecture, Life, matter, Physics, Quantum Theory, Science
This 13th Century Bishop Anticipated the Big Bang and Multiverse Theory

Philosopher and theologian Robert Grosseteste had a few interesting ideas. Surprised he didn't end up on a stake. Via HuffPo: A 13th century British bishop’s theories of the origin and...

Close